A little bit of faith restored in NZ

[Motu]

One of my brothers in law had a business on a busy central city street,he had a pretty high turnover of staff - door to door and tele marketing mainly.He had an almost permanent job vacancy sign out.So he'd get low lifes with facial tats....22 stone hair in curlers with pink fluffy slipper types come in.Of course they are not suitable for any job at all....and as soon as he said,ah,no - they'd be yelling at ther top of their voice about discrimination just because they don't use underarm deoderant.So he'd slip them a $50 and send them out the door.That's all they wanted.

Last couple I've got rid of I've made redunant - ''there's not enough work for you...as of from today.You can work your redundancy out''.That way it doesn't cost me an arm and a leg.Employees can send a small busness under real easy.

[Beemer]

About time we hear of a good outcome like this - I get fed up with hearing of these ones where someone is a lazy and useless tosser and yet because their dismissal was not handled 100% by the book, the moron gets reinstated and the company owners are left with huge legal bills. What is wrong with firing someone for not doing their job or for causing trouble?

First visit once you get the bike should be to the tosser's home - rev it a few times, stroke the tank and then wave!

[The_Dover]

where someone is a lazy and useless tosser

no need to get personal........

[sAsLEX]

Like the guy down Tauranga way who fired a cretin who

Stole from the business
Tagged swatikas on a jewish families home affected by the haulocaust

And he still got done for wrongful dissmissal

[acewheelie]

Pays to be a bit more on the "down-low" when advertising your services for dirty deeds.

I didn't threaten to shoot any one, errrrrrrr but would off Elen Clarke cheaply, LOL!!

[Wolf]

Of course they are not suitable for any job at all....and as soon as he said,ah,no - they'd be yelling at ther top of their voice about discrimination just because they don't use underarm deoderant

Yeah, well, what does he expect, after discriminating against them for being incapable like that!

Waiting for the day when we have to hire a pastry chef on the Help Desk because we won't be allowed to discriminate those who have absolutely no background in InfoTech - or have to interview everyone who manages to get an application to us because we can't discriminate against those who have no education, spell their own names a different way three times on the same page or were actually applying for a fore-court attendant's job at Mobil but accidentally sent the application form to us.

Face it: WE ALL DISCRIMINATE!

As employers, as employees, in our personal lives... It's how we function, it is how we deem who/what is suitable to our needs. If you like only MOS with blonde hair, you're hardly going to date one with dark hair; if you're hiring a chef, you're not going to hire someone who can't cook; if you have strong moral qualms about killing you're not going to sign up for the Marines.

If your discrimination runs to prejudice against certain races, sexes, creeds, ages etc, you're still going to do it - but if you have a braincell or two you're going to be discrete about it: "The successful candidate had more like the skill pool we required", "we did not think that the unsuccessful applicant would mesh with the team". If they take you to employment court, the blunt "well, frankly, we didn't hire him because he came across as a troublemaker - and it would seem that his actions have proved us right!" should suffice.

[Finn]

finn,

next time you need to fire somebody go onto their computer while they are at lunch or in the loo or something and look at some kiddy porn. I'm sure you shouldn't have a problem firing the "offender" when that is discovered.

I hired a Private Investigator and an IT Forensics expert to provide factual information with the primary objective of discrediting him and his case. It worked.

When he started to lay the bullshit on thick, I pointed out his subscription to an adult dating service which he visited often during work and asked if he applied the same integrity and honesty in his recent marriage as he did to his employment. There were many other skeletons that came out of the closet during the case.

[The_Dover]

that was your subscription Finn, don't you remember how we met?

[Wolf]

Trouble with the new law, is you have a hell of a job getting rid of someone who is totally useless. One place I worked, one of the departments hired a bloke who must have impressed them with his ability enough to get the job and then, once installed, proved to be totally useless at it. Don't know if he faked his ability at the interview or faked his inability once he got the job - tending to the latter as I don't think anyone as useless as he purported to be could have landed a job.

They couldn't sack him, of course - total inability to do your job is not grounds for dismissal (WTF????) so they moved him to another, easier job, which he also "couldn't do", so they moved him again to an even easier job - in the end, his job description was basically turn up to work 5 days a week at the designated time and stick around until the end of the working day.

Regrettably he proved quite capable of that (since failure to turn up to work is grounds for dismissal) and they were stuck with him for years until they were able to make him redundant. (Guess they no longer required a professional "turner-upper").

Under the old rules they would have at least gotten three months of work out of him and he'd've had a hard job trying to convince them he was suddenly incapable of performing his duties afterwards.

One of the jobs he seemed incapable of doing was sit in a shed and hand out supplies to people who turned up with the appropriate paperwork. I mean, even soldiers manage to do quartermaster work and they need to be told when to eat!

The new laws just protect the inept and lazy. Hardly surprising, really, given that they were written by politicians - a sub-human species infamous for being both inept and lazy.

[Finn]

The morons that create these idealistic laws don't understand the wider implications such as what Wolf described. This prick that I hired had a direct impact on the team that worked around him. These people work hard and he made their life a living hell to the point that 3 of them wanted to leave. Why does the employment law ignore these people who have been with me for over 5 years?

I'll tell you why. Because the employment laws in NZ promote failure and inhibit growth just like the tax laws - just try and work harder, create wealth and do well by your family and we'll punish you for trying by taxing you to a point that it's not worth it.

Fuck you Labour and fuck you kiwi's that voted for them. Fucken inbreeds.

[The_Dover]

hey man, you hired me.

[Oakie]

I'm no fan of the ERA myself but it's really just a set of rules. If you play by the rules you can achieve what you want as an employer. It won't happen overnight but it will happen. Best thing to do if you ever want to get rid of someone is be guided by an employment lawyer.
Interested to see what a few of you have said about making these people's positions redundant as a way to get rid of them. That probably is the fastest way and is probably OK as long as you change the person's job around enough so it stands up to challenge. Once again though there are 'rules' to follow regarding redundancy.

[Finn]

hey man, you hired me.

Even I can make mistakes. Hey, we did have fun though, but it had to come to and end when the auditors questioned the 600% increase in entertainment expenses. My argument that prostitution was now legal and should have it's own GL code didn't site well with PWC. My attemps to code it as "Personal Development" and in your case "Staff Taining" also failed.

[Finn]

I'm no fan of the ERA myself but it's really just a set of rules. If you play by the rules you can achieve what you want as an employer. It won't happen overnight but it will happen. Best thing to do if you ever want to get rid of someone is be guided by an employment lawyer.
Interested to see what a few of you have said about making these people's positions redundant as a way to get rid of them. That probably is the fastest way and is probably OK as long as you change the person's job around enough so it stands up to challenge. Once again though there are 'rules' to follow regarding redundancy.

But what about all the small & struggling businesses that can't afford a lawyer from Dowee Screwem & How? And why should I play by the "rules"? It's my fucken company. It's hard enough as it is having an 1/3 unwanted shareholder who puts their hand out for their share before you've even fucken made it. Then they do their best to fuck you over in ever way possible.

The laws clearly favour the lazy and incompetent that our education system and universities are producing in great quantities.

P.S. My last 3 posts were aided by beer.

[Jamezo]

I think you could sneak it into the Human Resources budget, but that would be pushing it in Dover's case.